↓ Skip to main content

Validity of self-reported weight and height: a cross-sectional study among Malaysian adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of self-reported weight and height: a cross-sectional study among Malaysian adolescents
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0362-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. C. Kee, K. H. Lim, M. G. Sumarni, C. H. Teh, Y. Y. Chan, M. I. Nuur Hafizah, Y. K. Cheah, E. O. Tee, Y. Ahmad Faudzi, M. Amal Nasir

Abstract

Self-reported weight and height are commonly used in lieu of direct measurements of weight and height in large epidemiological surveys due to inevitable constraints such as budget and human resource. However, the validity of self-reported weight and height, particularly among adolescents, needs to be verified as misreporting could lead to misclassification of body mass index and therefore overestimation or underestimation of the burden of BMI-related diseases. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of self-reported weight and height among Malaysian secondary school children. Both self-reported and directly measured weight and height of a subgroup of 663 apparently healthy schoolchildren from the Malaysian Adolescent Health Risk Behaviour (MyAHRB) survey 2013/2014 were analysed. Respondents were required to report their current body weight and height via a self-administrative questionnaire before they were measured by investigators. The validity of self-reported against directly measured weight and height was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the Bland-Altman plot and weighted Kappa statistics. There was very good intraclass correlation between self-reported and directly measured weight [r = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93, 0.97] and height (r = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90, 0.96). In addition the Bland-Altman plots indicated that the mean difference between self-reported and direct measurement was relatively small. The mean difference (self-reported minus direct measurements) was, for boys: weight, -2.1 kg; height, -1.6 cm; BMI, -0.44 kg/m(2) and girls: weight, -1.2 kg; height, -0.9 cm; BMI, -0.3 kg/m(2). However, 95% limits of agreement were wide which indicated substantial discrepancies between self-reported and direct measurements method at the individual level. Nonetheless, the weighted Kappa statistics demonstrated a substantial agreement between BMI status categorised based on self-reported weight and height and the direct measurements (kappa = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.84). Our results show that the self-reported weight and height were consistent with direct measurements and therefore can be used in assessing the nutritional status of Malaysian school children from the age of 13 to 17 years old in epidemiological studies and for surveillance purposes when direct measurements are not feasible, but not for assessing nutritional status at the individual level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 21 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,425,762
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,891
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,303
of 317,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#35
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.